Supremes Approve DNA Testing of Arrested Suspects

Post Reply New Topic

Supreme Court: DNA swab after arrest is legitimate search

Essentially, the police can not take a DNA swab until they have gone through the whole "Miranda" process. Once you're arrested, however, your DNA is as much of a biometric as your hair color, eye color, height, weight, gender, ethnicity, fingerprints, and any tattoos you may have.

And if your DNA matches that of an unknown perpetrator, you get charged with that crime, too.

This applies, of course, only to people arrested in the USA and/or by officers of USA law enforcement.

The Land of the Free... As people can be arrested for practically anything if the fuzz look closely enough...

I agree more with Scalia's dissent, DNA evidence should require a warrant. You don't need to put a swab inside someone's mouth to get a fingerprint. In a custodial enviroment such as an arrest, 4th Amendement protections are hightened.

And the Nazis rule again.

When a person is arrested, they're already given a full body-cavity search. This means that the police are legally enabled to force the arrestee's mouth open and stick a gloved finger into his or her cheeks to look for hidden contraband and other evidence. This also means that the police can probe the arrestee's anus (and women's vaginas) for contraband and illegal substances.

Yes, people really do try to hide things - illegal things - in those places.

So, if police officers are legally enabled to stick their fingers up your butt and into your mouth after you're arrested, then it only follows that they should be enabled to stick a swab into your mouth for a DNA sample, as well...

... and if you spit on a police officer, not only have you already "donated" a DNA sample, but you've also earned the charges of "Assaulting a Police Officer", "Obstruction of a Police Officer in the Performance of His or Her Duties", and "Resisting Arrest".

I don't see a problem with this. At all. I support a national ID system that includes biometric data (including DNA) too.

It makes sense to me, as well. Military personnel are already required to submit a DNA sample; so what makes arrestees any more privileged?

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

Nonsense. Getting DNA is no worse (in principle) than taking mug shots.

ruveyn

... or hair color, eye color, height, weight, gender, ethnicity, fingerprints, tattoos, scars, moles ... et cetera.

It's just another biometric, that's all.

One that has exonerated innocent people from their convictions, and caused them to receive millions of (American) dollars as settlements for being convicted and imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit.

If DNA had been admissible as evidence when they were arrested, they may not have even gone to trial due to "Exculpatory Evidence".

In other words: "If the genes don't fit, then you must acquit!"

I don't recall mentioning anything about spiting on a person.....

I'm aware of past SCOTUS rulings on the subject of searches, however, until today, all of those practices were for the interest of protecting the safety of individuals taken into custody from themselves and each other. That's not the same as using an (admittedly, not very) invasive procedure to extract DNA, not for safety purposes, but to acquire information for a database. The arguement that Justice Scalia made is that taking DNA, without a warrant, violates 4th amendement protections, and with no compelling interest in the immediate safety of individuals.

The difference here is that the searches you reference above are for the immediate safety of other individuals in custody, the individual themselves, and the staff. The DNA search is for the purpose of extracting evidence, without warrant or consent, to match against "possible" crimes.

"Probable Cause" would likely cover this in most cases (imo).

Otherwise, the same evidence that the police collect must be available to the defendant, and if the DNA evidence collected from the defendant does not match any DNA evidence taken from the scene of the crime - such as from the body of a rape victim - the charges against the defendant could be dropped.

However, I do agree with the "immediate safety of other individuals in custody" issue. If the DNA collected from the arrestee (let's call him "Mr. Strawman") indicates that he is likely to be the same person who had committed a serious of heinous torture-mutilation-murders, then placing that person in a cell reserved for dangerous criminals would be in order, thus justifying in this one instance the collection of an arrestee's DNA.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out in a real arrest-trial-conviction situation. It may get challenged all over again.

Fnord, this was a "real arrest-trial-conviction situation". Yes, a scumbag will go to jail. Bad defendants do not make good law.

I'll address the hypothetical case of "Mr. Strawman" by noting that it takes at least several days (with a rush job) to get a DNA match, far longer than any reasonable use of "immediate safety".

And DNA evidence in a case must already be disclosed to the defense, see Brady and related cases.

All I'm asking for is a warrant in accorance with the 4th amendment.

Well then, taking DNA from an arrestee - who seems to have been trying to get his conviction overturned on a mere technicality - is very effective. Thus, the concept is proven. QED


Good point, although most arrestees for murder seem to be put on suicide watch in relative isolation anyway, so the point may be moot.


Another good point!

So far, I haven't read anything really bad about this practice. Even if the police somehow mishandle the DNA evidence, it seems more likely to result in an acquittal, rather than a conviction - remember O.J. Simpson?

Anyhow, the practice of collecting an arrestee's DNA is likely to be with us for a very long time.

If you give the cops a stare, your DNA!,
If you don't show the cops respect, your DNA!,
If your politics are wrong, your DNA!,
Always your DNA!
You belong to the ruling class and don't you forget it.

I do wonder, what can they do with my DNA?

Maybe in a Gattaca-like world I'd be reluctant, but not giving one's DNA seems like protesting for protesting's sake, as there is not much they can do with it apart from its intended use. If I was innocent, the most logical choice would be to give it up willingly so they can see nothing matches and they can leave me in peace.

They can find out all sorts of things about your alleged genetic defects.